Petitioners have nearly enough signatures to force vote on rezoning

Apr. 5, 2013

Written by

Petitioners seeking to overturn a controversial rezoning fell just short of the signatures needed to force a vote on the matter, but they’ll get 10 days to gather more.

City Council voted Feb. 25 to rezone property near Campbell Avenue and Grand Street from residential to general retail, paving the way for a Walmart grocery store to replace several homes and the Calvary Temple Life360 church.

Opponents unhappy with the 5-4 vote almost immediately began gathering signatures for a referendum petition, which would force council to repeal the earlier decision or send the question to a public vote.

Petitioners turned in almost 2,400 signatures in late March. On Friday, the City Clerk’s office announced that 1,744 of those could be verified as belonging to registered city voters, just shy of the 1,787 required.

According to the City Charter, the petitioners have until 5 p.m. April 15 to gather the 43 signatures needed to meet the threshold, which is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the 2011 general election.

Scott Youngkin, one of the organizers of the petition effort, said he’s confident the group will get the signatures it needs.

“I think it’s a piece of cake,” he said Friday. “We’ve got First Friday Art Walk tonight and the kite festival tomorrow, so I don’t think it will be a problem.”

Youngkin said he’s not sure what to expect once the signatures are gathered. City Council members will have the option of repealing the earlier decision that rezoned the property from residential to general retail. If they don’t, the repeal would go to a vote of the people in August, at an estimated cost of $80,000 to $100,000.

“There will be another public hearing, so we’ll bring our information back to council,” Youngkin said, declining to speculate on whether council would repeal the rezoning or send it to voters. Even if they opt for the latter, the zoning change allowing the Walmart would be put on hold until the election.

“I just don’t know what they’re thinking — we’ve got some new council members, so it’s a tough call,” Youngkin said.

(Page 2 of 3)

Contentious effort

As controversial as the rezoning was, the effort to overturn has proved equally contentious.

Article 14 of the Springfield City Charter gives residents the right to circulate petitions to try to overturn any City Council decision except for certain emergency bills and those that deal with taxes or appropriations.

City Council members in the past have attempted to add zoning cases to the list of exemptions, but voters strongly rejected the change — a 1994 charter amendment that would have prohibited initiative or referendum petitions related to zoning was voted down by a margin of more than 3-1.

The Missouri Supreme Court made note of that result in a 1997 decision related to a related petition-based rezoning effort.

That case also involved Wal-Mart, although the retailer’s position, and the city’s, were reversed.

Siding with neighboring property owners, City Council turned down a request to rezone a 37-acre tract near U.S. 65 and Battlefield Road where a Wal-Mart Supercenter was planned. The owner of the tract then gathered more than 3,000 signatures to force a public vote on the issue.

City Council refused to hold an election, sparking a lengthy court battle. The Supreme Court ultimately decided the petition should have been allowed to go to voters.

Still, some members of the business and development community have warned of dire consequences if the current petition is allowed to advance.

“First there would be a total loss of confidence by the development community in City Hall’s abilities to perform, second (the) ability to finance could dry up (due) to the uncertainty, not to mention potential financial harm done to the parties ...,” real estate consultant David C. Murray wrote in a March 27 email to council members.“Can you say lawsuit?”

Architect Geoffrey Butler made similar arguments in an email the next day.

“When Springfield adopted a Zoning Ordinance years ago it was to provide for some level of certainty for property owners regarding their property,” Butler wrote, arguing that the zoning process allows neighboring property owners to object, potentially requiring six council members, rather than just five, to approve a change.

(Page 3 of 3)

“It costs a lot of money and effort to develop property,” he wrote. “Once you get your zoning, you should be able to proceed without the fear of a referendum by some disgruntled parties who might not really be affected by your development but have the money, time and willingness to collect the signatures for a referendum.

“If this referendum effort succeeds, the message it would send to the development community is that we are not open for development and anyone who wants to spend the time and money to oppose your development can do so with impunity.”

Butler encouraged council members to refuse to repeal the rezoning and also refuse to send it to an election — a course of action that would violate the City Charter — and instead let opponents take their challenge to court.

“This referendum is brought forth by people who have no standing in the matter and a referendum is not the proper venue for action,” Butler wrote.

Youngkin argued that the charter says otherwise.

“They tried to change that back in 1994 and the voters overwhelmingly rejected it,” he said. “It is a process that is available and there for a reason.”